What draws the line at life?

[grayson]

I have had a dilemma for years. See my science teacher said that a living organism has to have a number of things to be alive. Stuff like reproduction, and homeostasis. But a mule does not reproduce so, does that make it not living? I would think that anything that has a sort of consciousness is living. But a virus has no consciousness of any sort (We can talk about that later in this topic, after the basics are done). So, what is a living organism? Well, anything with a system of sorts is living. Let me explain. An atom is very complicated and It uses electrons which reproduce photons (We are getting somewhere). Electrons also bind atoms together, and this can happen until it creates an actual organism. So does mean an atom is a living thing? I don't know, you can decide.

Also, atoms have homeostasis. Don't read the next line if you want to guess.

(Chemical reactions)

[Genady]

14 minutes ago, grayson said:

what is a living organism?

For which purposes?

[grayson]

5 minutes ago, Genady said:

For which purposes?

That is what I am trying to figure out. What is living and what is not.

[Genady]

Just now, grayson said:

That is what I am trying to figure out. What is living and what is not.

But definition depends on the purpose. What is it going to be used for?

Or, when? Where?

[grayson]

8 minutes ago, Genady said:

But definition depends on the purpose. What is it going to be used for?

Or, when? Where?

Okay here is a concept. Atoms and electrons reproduce light (Reproduction). They "bind" into molecules (Adaptation/Reproduction). They react to other chemicals (Homeostasis/response to stimuli). They even respond to heat (Homeostasis). They also need electromagnetism to stay together (Metabolism). Doies that mean they are living?

 

Edited August 19, 2023 by grayson

[Genady]

6 minutes ago, grayson said:

Doies that mean they are living?

For which purpose?

[grayson]

6 minutes ago, Genady said:

For which purpose?

I don't understand what you mean by "Which purpose?" I don't clearly understand what you mean. Does life actually have a purpose?

[Genady]

1 minute ago, grayson said:

I don't understand what you mean by "Which purpose?" I don't clearly understand what you mean. Does life actually have a purpose?

Definitions have purpose. NASA has its definition of living organisms for the purpose of looking for life on other planets. Biology has its definition of living organisms for the purpose of biological research. Systems science has its definition for the purpose of determining levels of complexity. Etc.

[grayson]

4 minutes ago, Genady said:

Definitions have purpose. NASA has its definition of living organisms for the purpose of looking for life on other planets. Biology has its definition of living organisms for the purpose of biological research. Systems science has its definition for the purpose of determining levels of complexity. Etc.

I would probably say for chemistry in forms of complexity.

Edit: But If i had to define it it would be any sort of system keeping it "alive"

Edited August 19, 2023 by grayson

[Genady]

1 minute ago, grayson said:

I would probably say for chemistry in forms of complexity.

So, in your definition it might be a living organism.

How important is your definition? Does it matter?

PS. AFAIK, chemistry does not ask the OP question.

[TheVat]

The line gets tricky with prions, which can replicate misfolded proteins, but have no other traits associated with life.  They seem to be naughty chemistry, rather than organisms.  

[grayson]

4 minutes ago, Genady said:

So, in your definition it might be a living organism.

How important is your definition? Does it matter?

PS. AFAIK, chemistry does not ask the OP question.

Yes, In my definition an atom can be a living organism.

But it is hard to draw the line because I had to actively search for a sort of "metabolism" for atoms.

[Genady]

Just now, grayson said:

Yes, In my definition an atom can be a living organism.

But it is hard to draw the line because I had to actively search for a sort of "metabolism" for atoms.

You still did not answer, what is the point. You can just decide that it is a living organism. Nobody will care.

[grayson]

8 minutes ago, Genady said:

You still did not answer, what is the point. You can just decide that it is a living organism. Nobody will care.

I really don't know the purpose. But I can think of one. Thinking of an atom, or anything as a living thing can help us better understand it. Everything in the universe naturally wants to keep itself together with things like gravity, or chemical reactions. Studying the theory of how everything want to stay "alive" can help us better understand the universe.

[Genady]

1 hour ago, grayson said:

I really don't know the purpose. But I can think of one. Thinking of an atom, or anything as a living thing can help us better understand it. Everything in the universe naturally wants to keep itself together with things like gravity, or chemical reactions. Studying the theory of how everything want to stay "alive" can help us better understand the universe.

OK. But it will not matter to NASA, when they search for life on Mars. They already know that there are atoms on Mars.

It will also not matter, for example, to an agency that gives grants for research of living organisms. Atoms are not living organisms in their definition.

[grayson]

13 minutes ago, Genady said:

OK. But it will not matter to NASA, when they search for life on Mars. They already know that there are atoms on Mars.

It will also not matter, for example, to an agency that gives grants for research of living organisms. Atoms are not living organisms in their definition.

I really don't know what to say. I was just trying to get an answer to a question. I think I have found a better answer than biology. My concept isn't called anything yet but I will explain it as, everything in the universe wants to stay together or "Alive". Atoms aren't necessarily "Alive" but they do try to stay stable and not alive. That is why you see more oxygen or hydrogen than praseodymium. Technically there is some kind of system in atoms that makes them form into something or evolve into creatures. I think this concept is useful for a lot of things. Remember, this isn't just about biology anymore. I might post my concept on another topic.

[Genady]

5 minutes ago, grayson said:

I might post my concept on another topic.

Right, it is another topic altogether.

[iNow]

We humans try to put things into neat little categories. Boy girl. White black. Hot cold. Yummy yucky. 

It makes our feeble ape minds happy, but the universe doesn’t care about our word and category choices. 

It’s all on a spectrum, and it differs based on your perspective. Two people looking at the exact same thing might have two totally different interpretations. 

It’s all relative, you might say… and what is alive versus what is not is no different in that regard… and viruses really laugh at us when we’re trying to decide whether they’re alive or not. 

[TheVat]

No doubt in the future, if a conscious AI is developed, there will be debate as to whether or not it is alive.  And then the AI will be laughing at us.

[Sensei]

18 hours ago, grayson said:

Atoms aren't necessarily "Alive" but they do try to stay stable

Isotopes of an element are stable if there is no child isotope with a lower energy state.

Only a small fraction of all isotopes are stable.

If you supply the "missing" energy to a stable isotope, it can decay.

For example, you need an energy of 2.2 MeV to destroy deuterium, and it will decay into a free proton and a free neutron. Neutron is unstable, so it will further decay into a free proton, electron and neutrino.

[Phi for All]

On 8/19/2023 at 12:46 PM, grayson said:

Thinking of an atom, or anything as a living thing can help us better understand it. 

This is a specious argument, one that seems to make sense but really doesn't. An atom is NOT a living thing, not if you want to make meaningful distinctions between organic and inorganic matter.

On 8/19/2023 at 12:46 PM, grayson said:

Everything in the universe naturally wants to keep itself together with things like gravity, or chemical reactions. 

You're anthropomorphizing nature, and she really hates that (to steal one of swansont's great lines). Inanimate matter doesn't "want" anything. Gravity and chemistry have an effect on matter, but the matter doesn't "use" chemistry or gravity to achieve some goal. 

Don't you think a distinction needs to be made between say, a rock and a rabbit? The rabbit is MUCH more efficient at absorbing and dispersing sunlight as energy, and has systems to maintain that efficiency as long as it's "alive". Can you say the same about the rock?

 

[CharonY]

On 8/19/2023 at 8:07 PM, iNow said:

We humans try to put things into neat little categories. Boy girl. White black. Hot cold. Yummy yucky. 

It makes our feeble ape minds happy, but the universe doesn’t care about our word and category choices. 

It’s all on a spectrum, and it differs based on your perspective. Two people looking at the exact same thing might have two totally different interpretations. 

It’s all relative, you might say… and what is alive versus what is not is no different in that regard… and viruses really laugh at us when we’re trying to decide whether they’re alive or not. 

It goes back to the issue that many categories we have are post-hoc. We make kind of groups and then define them based on the differences we see in each category. The key element really is not whether a category is "real" but whether it is useful. 

It is the same as the all models are wrong situation.

[iNow]

We’re in violent agreement. 

[swansont]

On 8/19/2023 at 2:46 PM, grayson said:

Thinking of an atom, or anything as a living thing can help us better understand it.

I had a career as an atomic physicist, and never once did I think of atoms as alive, nor would that fiction have helped my understanding. It might have impeded it.

But I can only speak for myself. We have QM interpretations to aid in understanding. But you’d need to lay out a case for why this would be helpful to someone.

On 8/19/2023 at 4:29 PM, grayson said:

Atoms aren't necessarily "Alive" but they do try to stay stable and not alive.

We have a framework in physics for understanding why certain states are stable, and it’s based on energy, and having a pathway to another state.

[grayson]

6 hours ago, swansont said:

I had a career as an atomic physicist, and never once did I think of atoms as alive, nor would that fiction have helped my understanding. It might have impeded it.

But I can only speak for myself. We have QM interpretations to aid in understanding. But you’d need to lay out a case for why this would be helpful to someone.

We have a framework in physics for understanding why certain states are stable, and it’s based on energy, and having a pathway to another state.

Unfortunately not everyone has a degree and has to learn stuff by themselves.